The Supreme Court has held that merely possessing a property for a long period does not establish ownership through adverse possession. A person claiming adverse possession must prove that the possession was open, continuous and hostile to the true owner’s title.
The judgment was delivered in Bhag Singh (D) Thr. Mahant Kashmir Singh v. Basant Kaur (D) Thr. LRs. & Others (Civil Appeal No. 1718 of 2016). The Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar dismissed the appeal on 10-Sep-2026.
Background of the case
The dispute concerned 4 Kanals 18 Marlas of agricultural land in Muktsar, Punjab. The plaintiffs claimed ownership based on a registered sale deed dated 13 May 1965.
The defendants, representing Dera Bhai Mastan Singh, argued that the property had earlier been dedicated to the Dera for religious and charitable purposes. They also claimed that the Dera and its successive Mahants had remained in possession for several decades and had acquired ownership through adverse possession.
The Trial Court and First Appellate Court accepted the defendants’ case, relying significantly on revenue records showing possession for Dharam-Arth purposes. The Punjab and Haryana High Court later reversed these findings. The matter then reached the Supreme Court.
What did the Supreme Court say?
The Supreme Court held that revenue records can be relevant evidence of possession, but they do not by themselves establish ownership. Entries in Jamabandis and Khasra Girdawaris cannot create or extinguish titles.
The Court also rejected the argument that long and uninterrupted possession was enough to establish adverse possession.
It noted that the defendants had not established when their possession became hostile to the true owners. There was no specific pleading or evidence showing the point at which they openly denied the owners’ title.
The Court observed that unless the commencement of hostile possession is pleaded and proved, the statutory period for adverse possession cannot begin to run.
The Court also pointed out that the defendants had relied on two different grounds for claiming ownership, dedication and adverse possession.
These are based on different legal principles. If the property had already been dedicated to the Dera, there would be no need to claim ownership through adverse possession. The Supreme Court therefore upheld the High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal.
What does it mean for you?
For property owners, the judgment reinforces an important principle: someone occupying or using your property for many years does not automatically become its owner.
A claim of adverse possession requires clear evidence that the possession was hostile to the true owner’s title and that such hostile possession continued for the required statutory period.
Revenue records may support a claim regarding possession, but they cannot by themselves establish ownership.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Bhag Singh v. Basant Kaur, Judgment dated 10 September 2026.
